Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 94 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Maharashtra vs Labour Law Practitioners' Association ... on 11 February, 1998

Prantiya Kamdar Sena And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 14 October, 1998

17. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the present recruitment of Judges of the Labour Court made by the State Government in consultation with the Public Service Commission is to be considered as valid or not. It is true that the State Government initiated steps for appointment of Judge of the Labour Court pursuant to an order passed by this Court on February 11, 1998. The Court in that order, did not indicate the manner in which the selection has to be made. Even though the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Association (supra) was rendered on February 11, 1998, which was later relied on by a Full Bench of this Court in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1998 (2) GLR 1135, no further directions were issued by the Court regarding the recruitment rules or the mode of selection. Naturally, the Public Service Commission finalised the list of selected candidates. The Counsel for the selected candidates contended that this selection was made perfectly in accordance with the recruitment rules and in compliance with Section 7 of the I.D. Act and Section 9 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and therefore, the selection is to be upheld. If there is violation of the constitutional provision, it is difficult to sustain any action even if the same is done in accordance with other statutory provisions. Constitutional provision has got supremacy over all other statutory rules as the Constitution is the "Will of the People" whereas the statutory laws are the "creation of the legislators", who are elected representatives.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Muljibhai Bhurabhai vs Upendra Vyas-Manager on 10 August, 2000

5. Mr. K. K. Shah, Learned Counsel, as one of the interveners, submitted that the phrase 'subordinate to it' as appearing in Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act is wide enough to include all courts which are judicially subordinate to High Court even though administrative control over them under Article 235 of the Constitution does not vests in the High Court and under Article 227 of the Constitution, High Court has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Mr. Shah, by inviting our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Labour Laws Practitioners Association, 1998 I CLR 850 SC, submitted that since the Labour Court Judges and the Judges of the Industrial Tribunal belong to judicial service, the hierarchy contemplated in the case of Labour Court Judges is the hierarchy of Labour Court Judges and Industrial Tribunal Judges with the Industrial Tribunal Judges holding superior position of District Judges, the Labour Court is held subject to High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is not correct to contend that the Labour Court is not a 'court'.
Gujarat High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 12 - C K Buch - Full Document

Jaisinh Jodhabhai Vaisya And Grofed ... vs Laxmanbhai Arshibhai Zala on 7 November, 2000

12. The question whether the Labour Courts were Courts within the purview of the control jurisdiction of the High Court and whether the recruitment of Labour Court judges was required to be made in accordance with Article 234 of the Constitution of India came up for consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra v. Labour Court Law Practitioners' Association, AIR 1998 SC 1233 : 1998 (2) SCC 688 : 1998-I-LLJ-868 and the Supreme Court holding that Labour Courts were Courts and decide disputes that are civil in nature (paragraph 5 of the judgment) and that the Labour Courts were undoubtedly Courts in the true sense of the term applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd. (supra), came to the conclusion that Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution of India dealing with the Subordinate Courts applied for making appointment to such Courts. It was observed that the said Constitutional provisions reflected a clear anxiety on the part of the framers of the Constitution to preserve and promote independence of the judiciary from the executive. Thus, in a case where the question as to whether the Labour Courts were subordinate Courts directly arose before the Supreme Court, it has in terms been held that they are Courts subordinate to the High Court, making them amenable to the control jurisdiction of the High Court and the appointments of its Presiding Officers subject to the procedure indicated in Chapter VI of the Constitution pertaining to the Subordinate Courts.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jaisinh Jodhabhai Vaisya And Grofed ... vs Laxmanbhai Arshibhai Zala on 7 November, 2000

5. The question whether the Labour Courts were Courts within the purview of the control jurisdiction of the High Court and whether the recruitment of Labour Court judges was required to be made in accordance with Article 234 of the Constitution of India came up for consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Labour Court Law Practitioners' Association, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1233 and the Supreme Court holding that Labour Courts were Courts and decide disputes that are civil in nature (paragraph 5 of the judgement) and that the Labour Courts were undoubtedly Courts in the true sense of the term applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi Vs. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., reported in AIR 1950 SC 188, came to the conclusion that Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution of India dealing with the Subordinate Courts applied for making appointment to such Courts. It was observed that the said Constitutional provisions reflected a clear anxiety on the part of the framers of the Constitution to preserve and promote independence of the judiciary from the executive. Thus, in a case where the question as to whether the Labour Courts were subordinate Courts directly arose before the Supreme Court, it has in terms been held that they are Courts subordinate to the High Court, making them amenable to the control jurisdiction of the High Court and the appointments of its Presiding Officers subject to the procedure indicated in Chapter VI of the Constitution pertaining to the Subordinate Courts.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Industrial vs State on 12 March, 2012

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record we find that in the case of the State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Association and others (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the first respondent before the said court was Labour Law Practitioners' Association, an association of members practising in the Industrial and Labour Courts in the State of Maharashtra. The Association filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the appointment of respondents 2 and 3 who were Assistant Commissioners of Labour, as Judges of the Labour Court at Pune and Sholapur under a Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated March 8, 1979. They also prayed that the provisions of the amended Section 9 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the amended Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act in so far as these provisions authorised the appointment of Assistant Commissioners of Labour as Judges of the Labour Court, were void and illegal and contrary to Article 234 of the Constitution. There was also a prayer in the writ-petition for a direction to the State of Maharashtra to comply with the provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution in appointing judges of the Labour Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Ishwarbhai Narottambhai Patel vs K.H. Trivedi And Ors. on 24 June, 2003

If the petition challenges the decision of a Tribunal, further inquiry should ensue. The expression "Tribunal" would include within its ambit adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by the State and are invested with judicial, as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions. The principal test of determining the character of the authority as Tribunal is whether that authority is empowered to exercise any adjudicating power of the State and whether the same has been conferred on it by any statute or a statutory rule. If the Tribunal or the Court has exercised judicial function of the State as explained in the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Association, 1998 (2) GLR 1079 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 1233 and the Tribunal or the Court is subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Article 235 of the Constitution, then a presumption will be raised that the single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 25 September, 2014

(3) No appointment of the Chairperson or of any other Member shall be invalidated merely by reason of any vacancy or any defect in the constitution of the Selection Committee.” A perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 7 reveals the composition of the selection committee for selection of the Chairperson and Members of the NTT. It was sought to be pointed out, that there were two representatives of the executive, out of three member selection committee, and only one member in the selection committee was from the judiciary. Accordingly it was asserted, that the two representatives belonging to the executive would control the outcome of every selection process. Since the NTT was, an alternative to the jurisdiction earlier vested with the High Court, it was submitted, that the same process of selection, as was prevalent for appointment of judges of the High Court, should be adopted for selection of Chairperson and Members of the NTT. All that is imperative and essential is, that the selection process should be the same, as is in place, for the court sought to be substituted. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that a provision similar to Section 7(2) of the NTT Act, had been struck down by this Court, in State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Association (supra).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 355 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.Premkumar vs State Of Kerala

10. It is the above findings of the Supreme Court that the petitioners place reliance upon to contend that, inasmuch as the DCDRF is a forum to which the adjudicatory functions, which were earlier discharged by the civil/criminal courts, were transferred consequent to the enactment of the Consumer Disputes Act, it is essential that the standards and stature of the erstwhile court be maintained while appointing the President of the DCDRF. The argument, in other words is that, inasmuch as the qualifications prescribed for a person to be appointed as President of the DCDRF mandate that he must either be a sitting District Judge, a retired District Judge or a person qualified to be appointed as a District Judge, the process of appointment must be akin to the procedure mandated under Article 233 of the Constitution of India in relation to the appointment of District Judges, if the standards and stature of the erstwhile forum that was discharging adjudicatory functions is to be preserved. Counsel for the petitioners would also rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Association and Others - [AIR 1998 SC 1233] where a procedure of consultation with the High Court was held as mandatory while appointing persons as Presiding Officers of the W.P.(C).NO.34020/2014 & 26 con. cases Labour Courts. Attractive though the arguments may appear at first blush, I cannot accept the analogy that is sought to be drawn by counsel for the petitioners, between a forum that is constituted pursuant to a transfer of adjudicatory functions from a court that was earlier discharging such functions, and a forum such as the DCDRF that was constituted with the stated objective of creating a quasi- judicial body providing speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes.
Kerala High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - A K Nambiar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next